North America – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Say Her Name: Emily Pike, Another Tale of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women

Image 1: US Highway 60 with forest on either side. Source: Yahoo Images.

Along Highway 60 near Northeast of Globe, Arizona there are remote forests that surround the road. Cacti, prickly pears, and other desert shrubs litter the floors of the forest and create a desert-like oasis. Among the cacti, hidden in the desolate forest, a young girl’s dismembered remains were found in black trash bags on February 14, 2025. Her name was Emily Pike. One Hundred miles from the last place Emily Pike was seen alive, near mile marker 277, the 14 year old girl was found 1 month after being reported missing. Hers is just one horrific tale in a long timeline of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

Generations of Indigenous people have been subjected to perpetual cycles of abuse. Statistically, Native Americans and Alaska Natives are more likely to experiences higher rates of murder, rape, and violent crimes compared to the rest of the United States, with violence rates on reservations being ten times higher than the national average. Along with that, there aren’t reliable records of how many Native American women go missing and/or murdered each year. This is a violation of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states that no person should be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

In 2016, 5,712 American Indian and Alaska Native women and girls were reported missing by the National Crime Information Center. Out of the 5,712 cases, only 116 were recorded in the U.S. Department of Justice’s federal missing persons cases. Just in the year 2023, 5,800 Indigenous women –74 percent of them children– were missing. Article 7 of the UDHR states that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and should be considered equal before the law. The third leading cause of death for Indigenous women and girls is homicide.

The dead can see red. This is a belief held by many Native Americans. For many years, a red hand has represented a connection from the spirit world over to the physical world. Now, a red handprint across the mouth has come to symbolize the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) movement. For this blog, I will examine the timeline of Emily Pike’s death, the other children that ran away from Sacred Journey Inc. group home, and the introduction of Arizona House Bill (HB) 2281, which would create an alert system that would notify when an indigenous person goes missing.

Emily Pike’s Missing and Murder Case:

Woman with a red hand print over her mouth. — Image 2: Woman with a red handprint over her mouth. Source: Yahoo Images.

First and foremost, she was known for her smile. Family members and staff at the Sacred Journey Inc. have commented on her bubbly personality and how she was always quick with a smile. Emily Pike was a young Native American girl and a member of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. She grew up with her cousins, brother, mother, and grandmother on a reservation. After she was hospitalized due to self-harm, she was placed at Sacred Journey Inc. by the San Carlos Apache Tribe’s Social Services Department in September of 2023. The Sacred Journey Inc. is a group home for girls ages 7-18.

On September 11, 2023, Emily Pike and another child were reported missing by the group home. The girls had escaped through their bedroom window after staff administered their medication. There was no surveillance footage of the girls leaving; however, they were later found at Kleinman Park. The girls told police that they were forced to scrub baseboards, walls, and windowsills at Sacred Journey Inc. They also mentioned that they would have to get on their hands and knees to scrub the tiles. It was reported that one of the girls said she would just escape again if they took her back. Both girls were returned.

Nine days later, on September 20, 2023, Emily Pike was reported missing. An officer later found her out walking, and Emily stated that the staff would argue with the other young girls at the home, which made her uncomfortable. She did not want to return to the group home. Emily was sent to a mental health facility to get an evaluation at Mind 24/7. After the evaluation, she was returned to Sacred Journey Inc.

On October 31, 2023, the group home’s staff reported at 6:36 PM that Emily had run away again. At 9:15 PM the home called the police again to let them know that Emily had returned. Staff said there was no need for immediate medical attention and monitored her throughout the night.

Emily Pike ran away from the group home for the last time on January 27, 2025. Pike was reported missing to police by 8:19 PM and was last seen on an intersection near Mesa Drive and McKellips Road. Staff members reported that Pike was on medication for her behavioral and mental health issues. Two days later, on January 29th, a statewide missing person bulletin was issued for Emily Pike. Throughout the first week of February, there were multiple voice messages to police and the group home stating that Emily Pike was with her mother on the San Carlos Apache reservation. These claims were proven false after communication with Pike’s mother.

There is a trail near mile marker 277 of Highway 60 northeast of Globe, AZ. On February 14, 2025, suspicious black trash bags were found on the trail by a group of people. The two trash bags contained the remains of Emily Pike, around 100 miles from the last place she was seen alive. Emily Pike was finally found after a month of being missing. Police say she was most likely murdered at a different location and later placed on the trail near Highway 60. An autopsy could not reveal what the cause of death was.

What About the Other Missing Children?

MMIW movement with woman holding a sign that says, "You are not forgotten". — Image 3: MMIW movement with woman holding a sign that says, “You are not forgotten”. Source: Yahoo Images.

The San Carlos Apache tribe has called for an investigation into Sacred Journey Inc. and the other 30 children that have gone missing from this group home in the past three years before, according to the group home’s operator, Elizabeth Morales, eventually being found. Along with that, they are pushing for state-licensed residential children group homes to have stricter regulations. After Emily Pike went missing and was murdered shortly afterwards, the tribe has put more pressure on state leaders to make change.

Emily Pike was reported four times for running away before she was murdered. Each time it was thought that she left through her window. There was never any security footage of her leaving, and it is unknown if any further security methods were put into place after the first three times Pike ran away. In addition to Emily Pike, Veronica Cruz is another young girl who went missing from the Sacred Journey Inc. group home. On May 18, 2024, 17-year-old Veronica Cruz went missing around 5:00 PM. and was not found for almost a year, at which point she was said to have reunited with her family. The Mesa Police Department has yet to verify this.

The group home’s operator, Elizabeth Morales, commented that the other 30 children that had gone missing were accounted for and that children often ran away, but were always found. That was, until Emily Pike.

Arizona House Bill 2281:

Image 4: Arizona state capital building. Source: Yahoo Images.

On March 21, 2025 the San Carlos Apache tribe sent a letter to the Arizona legislature, urging them to pass House Bill (HB) 2281. This house bill would establish a Missing Indigenous Person Alert System. The alert system would immediately send out a notification as soon as an indigenous person is reported missing. This system would be similar to an Amber Alert system. An alert system like this would be extremely useful, as there is not a current system in place that keeps an accurate track of how many indigenous people go missing every year.

The San Carlos Apache tribe also stated that they are offering a reward of $75,000 for any information that leads to the arrest and conviction of Emily Pike’s murderer. Along with the reward they called for an investigation into the group home regarding their safety measures. Why have over 30 residents gone missing from the Sacred Journey Inc.? What safety measures has the group home taken to ensure that their residents are safe? These are questions that need to be answered so that no other child is hurt.

Conclusion:

Emily Pike’s murderer(s) have yet to be found. The case is still in the early stages, and it is important that her story is not forgotten. Too many indigenous people go missing and/or murdered every year. The violence that indigenous people, women and girls in particular, experience is at an alarmingly high rate. To read more about the violence that indigenous women experience and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) movement, read Maya Crocker’s blog post Our Lost Indigenous Women. To read more about how Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) women receive disproportionately less media coverage than white women when they are missing, check out Mary Bailey’s blog post How Black and Indigenous Women are Detrimentally Affected by ‘Missing White Woman Syndrome’ and Arshnoor Grewal’s blog post The Missing Case of Gabby Petito and the Cases of Missing Indigenous Women.

If you would like to see Emily Pike’s crime timeline, check out Case Files for Missing and Endangered. Emily Pike’s death is a travesty, and more attention is needed on all the unsolved cases of indigenous women who are missing and/or murdered. As for Emily Pike, until her murderer(s) are found, tried, and convicted, her name should be spread far and wide.

Who Gets to Decide? Prescription Laws, Public Health, and the Ethics of Medical Gatekeeping

In a world where people are expected to take responsibility for their health, the systems meant to support them too often stand in the way. Around the globe, and especially in the United States, access to essential medications is tightly controlled by prescription laws. These laws are often justified on the grounds of safety, but they also raise a pressing human rights concern: What happens when gatekeeping itself becomes a barrier to health, autonomy, and dignity?

This blog argues that prescription drug laws, as they currently function, too often violate the core principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These include the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being (Article 25), the right to autonomy and freedom from arbitrary interference (Article 3 and 12), and the right to equal access to public services and protection (Article 21). By rethinking how access to medications is regulated, we can move toward a more equitable and compassionate model of care.

Prescription Control as a Barrier to Rights

At their best, prescription requirements aim to protect people from misuse, medical harm, and exploitation. But in practice, these laws create systemic barriers, particularly for marginalized communities, by requiring time, money, and proximity to healthcare providers simply to access medications that are safe, well understood, and often urgently needed.

This structure assumes that people cannot be trusted to manage their own care without professional oversight. But that assumption is increasingly at odds with both ethics and evidence. Many people understand the medications they rely on. They know the risks. Studies show that patients with chronic conditions often develop a high level of medication literacy and risk awareness through long-term use and counseling. And yet, they are asked to justify their needs to clinicians who may not share their urgency, or even their values. Prescription laws, in these cases, do more than inconvenience. They function as a form of medical disenfranchisement, denying individuals the right to act in their own best interest simply because they are not deemed qualified to make decisions for themselves.

Pretty sparkly pills — Image 1: An assortment of pills. Source: Yahoo Images

In the United States, prescription requirements are enforced through a legal and regulatory structure that delegates authority over medication access to licensed healthcare providers. The system is primarily governed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938, which granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to require certain drugs to be dispensed only by prescription. In 1951, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment formally distinguished between “prescription” (legend) drugs and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, mandating that certain medications could only be obtained with the written authorization of a licensed practitioner.

Today, the FDA, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and state medical boards, determines which medications require prescriptions. These typically include:

Drugs with a high potential for abuse or dependence, such as opioids
Medications with significant side effects or narrow therapeutic windows, like warfarin or lithium
- A narrow therapeutic window (or therapeutic index) means there is a small range between a drug’s effective dose and its toxic dose, making precise dosing essential to avoid under-treatment or dangerous side effects
Substances that require monitoring or diagnostic oversight, such as antidepressants, antibiotics, and hormonal therapies

For a medication to transition from prescription-only to OTC, the manufacturer must submit a New Drug Application (NDA) with evidence that average consumers can safely use the drug without a clinician’s supervision. This review process is lengthy, costly, and highly restrictive. Even well-established medications often remain prescription-only due to regulatory or political reasons, rather than clinical necessity. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advocated since 2012 for over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception due to its safety profile, yet access remains restricted in many states due to political and regulatory inertia.

While intended as safeguards, these laws impose significant barriers, especially for people in rural areas, uninsured individuals, undocumented immigrants, and those with chronic conditions who need long-term medication access.

Access Denied: Real-World Consequences

To illustrate how this plays out, consider two examples: insulin and oral contraceptives.

Insulin, a century-old medication essential for people with diabetes, remains locked behind prescription requirements in the United States. The result is tragic: according to the American Diabetes Association, 1 in 4 Americans with diabetes has rationed insulin due to cost or access barriers. Delayed prescriptions, expired scripts, and unnecessary office visits put lives at risk—not because insulin is inherently dangerous, but because the system around it is.

Image 2: Insulin and injection supplies. Source: Yahoo Images

Now consider oral contraceptives. Major medical bodies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the World Health Organization have long advocated for over-the-counter access to birth control, citing overwhelming evidence of safety and efficacy. Yet millions must still navigate clinical appointments, insurance requirements, or geographic isolation just to avoid an unintended pregnancy.

In both cases, prescription requirements do not enhance public safety—they undermine the right to health and self-determination. They increase cost, delay care, and disproportionately burden people with the fewest resources. These are not minor inefficiencies. They are rights violations with life-altering consequences.

Image 3: Monthly birth control pills. Source: Yahoo Images

The UDHR states in Article 25 that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care and necessary social services. But health is not merely about access to care; it also includes freedom and agency.

As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes, the right to health includes:

Availability: functioning healthcare services and medications
Accessibility: free from discrimination and within financial/physical reach
Acceptability: respectful of autonomy, culture, and identity
Quality: scientifically appropriate and safe

Prescription laws often fail all four. When a person cannot afford or reach a provider to refill their birth control, their care is not accessible. When a person is denied insulin because their script has expired, their treatment is not available. When gatekeeping assumes incompetence instead of encouraging informed decision-making, care becomes unacceptable in a rights-based framework.

Rethinking Risk, Rethinking Responsibility

None of this means all drugs should be available without limits. Medications with high risks of misuse, like opioids or antibiotics, require thoughtful regulation. However, the current system treats risk as a universal, rather than a spectrum. It places the burden of proof on patients rather than regulators and too often assumes incompetence by default.

We trust people to make countless risky decisions every day: driving, drinking, even refusing life-saving treatment. So why does buying an oral contraceptive or refilling a long-used insulin prescription require a professional sign-off?

A better model by human rights standards would be tiered and rights-conscious:

Expand over-the-counter and pharmacist-prescribed access for lower-risk, widely used medications
Increase public health education and harm reduction tools
Preserve professional guidance as an option, not an obstacle

This model would treat people not just as patients, but as rights-bearing agents.

Conclusion: The Right to Decide

Prescription drug laws were built with good intentions. However, when these laws block access, restrict autonomy, and exacerbate inequality, the human rights point of view holds that they must be reevaluated. Health is not just about surviving illness; it is also about having the freedom and support to shape one’s life. Access to medication is not simply a medical issue. It is a matter of freedom, equality, and dignity. The right to health also includes the right to decide. We don’t need to eliminate medical expertise, but, from a human rights perspective, we do need to stop making it the price of entry to healthcare.

Navigating the Impact of NIH Cancer Research Funding Cuts

In early 2025, the U.S. biomedical research community faced significant changes due to substantial reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), particularly affecting cancer research. These developments have sparked widespread discussion among scientists, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public. This blog will aim to provide a balanced examination of the recent NIH funding cuts, their implications for cancer research, and the broader context surrounding these decisions.

Understanding the NIH Funding Reductions

The NIH, a cornerstone of U.S. medical research, has traditionally supported a vast array of studies, including those focused on cancer. In 2025, the administration implemented significant budgetary changes, notably reducing indirect cost reimbursements for research institutions from an average of 60% to a capped rate of 15%. Indirect costs cover essential expenses such as facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, which are crucial for the everyday operations of research labs.

These adjustments were part of a broader initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk, aiming to streamline federal spending. The administration projected that these cuts would save approximately $4 billion annually. While fiscal responsibility is important, the abrupt nature of these changes has raised questions about the potential risks to the nation’s biomedical infrastructure.

Implications for Cancer Research

Cancer research is an area where sustained investment has historically led to life-saving innovations. Advances in immunotherapy, targeted drug therapies, and precision medicine have dramatically improved survival rates for several types of cancer. However, these breakthroughs result from years of incremental research, often supported by NIH grants.

The reductions in NIH support have led to concerns about the future of ongoing studies, the initiation of new projects, and the overall momentum in the fight against cancer. Institutions like the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) have expressed apprehension that these funding cuts could delay the development of new therapies and hinder access to clinical trials, especially in underserved communities. Moreover, the potential slowdown in research progress raises concerns about the long-term impact on patient outcomes and the country’s ability to maintain its leadership in biomedical innovation.

Additionally, early-phase research, which often carries the highest risk but also the most potential for groundbreaking discoveries, is especially vulnerable to funding cuts. Many of these projects rely on public funding because they cannot have private investment yet. Without sufficient support, promising leads may never get the chance to be explored.

Economic and Workforce Considerations

Beyond the scientific implications, the funding reductions have economic ramifications. Research institutions across the country rely on NIH grants not only for scientific purposes but also as a large source of employment. The cuts have led to hiring freezes, layoffs, and a general sense of uncertainty within the research community.

Early-career scientists, in particular, face challenges in securing positions and funding, potentially leading to a decline in talent ranging from academics to industry or even other sectors. This shift could have long-term effects on the innovation pipeline and the diversity of research perspectives. The potential loss of highly trained researchers might also compromise the quality of mentorship available to future generations of scientists.

Legal and Political Responses

The funding changes have prompted legal actions and political debates. A coalition of 22 states filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the abrupt changes to NIH funding policies could jeopardize critical research and violate administrative procedures.

In Congress, reactions have been mixed. Some lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the cuts, emphasizing the importance of sustained investment in medical research. Others have supported the administration’s efforts to reduce federal spending, highlighting the need for fiscal responsibility. The political discourse that’s happening reflects a broader national conversation about the balance between economic efficiency and public investment in science.

People researching in a lab — Image 2: Researchers working in a science lab. Source: Yahoo! Images

International Context and Competitiveness

Another dimension of the funding debate involves the global landscape of cancer research. The United States has long been a leader in biomedical innovation, attracting top talent from around the world. However, as other countries increase their investments in science and technology, funding instability in the U.S. could lead to a shift in the global research balance.

Nations like China, Germany, and South Korea have been expanding their research funding, particularly in emerging areas like gene editing and personalized medicine. Reduced NIH funding could make the U.S. less competitive in these fields, potentially leading to fewer international collaborations and a decline in scientific influence.

Historical Precedents and Lessons

This is not the first time NIH funding has faced uncertainty. Historical data shows that flat or declining NIH budgets have correlated with decreased research productivity and fewer grant applications being funded. During the budget sequestration of 2013, many research projects were delayed or canceled, and similar consequences are anticipated in the wake of the 2025 cuts.

However, the scientific community has also shown resilience. Philanthropic organizations, private foundations, and public-private partnerships have started stepping in to fill funding gaps. For example, the Cancer Moonshot initiative, launched in 2016, allowed both government and private resources to accelerate research. Examples like this may become increasingly important in the future.

Patient Perspectives and Public Engagement

From the perspective of patients and advocacy groups, the funding cuts represent not just a policy shift but a personal concern. Many patients rely on cutting-edge treatments developed through NIH-supported research. Delays in trials or the discontinuation of research programs could directly impact access to new therapies.

Public engagement has become a critical component of the response to the cuts. Grassroots campaigns, petitions, and awareness events have emerged to advocate for restored funding. Organizations like the American Cancer Society and Stand Up To Cancer have mobilized supporters to contact legislators and raise public awareness about the stakes involved.

Looking Ahead: Balancing Efficiency and Innovation

The recent NIH funding cuts show the complex interplay between government policy and scientific advancement. While efforts to streamline government spending are a legitimate aspect of public administration, it’s essential to consider the possible long-term consequences of these actions on critical areas like cancer research.

As the nation navigates these changes, continuing conversations among stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, patients, and the public, is necessary to ensure that the U.S. continues encouraging innovation while maintaining fiscal prudence. Collaborative funding models, greater transparency in policy decisions, and increased support for early-career researchers should ideally all play a role in adapting to the new funding landscape.

Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that scientific progress continues and that the U.S. remains a major player in cancer research and healthcare innovation.

Children’s Shows Today: Their Impact on Child Development and Behavior

Overview

Children’s television shows have a big influence on how young children learn and behave in a time when digital media permeates every aspect of daily life. Both positive and negative consequences can result from the content children consume, ranging from social skills and cognitive development to emotional regulation and moral development. It is crucial to look at how these shows affect young audiences in both positive and possibly negative ways as programming keeps changing to include new themes and methods of education. 

Image 1: Young boy watching television. Source: Yahoo! Images

The Evolution of Children’s Programming 

Over the past few decades, children’s television has undergone substantial changes. The foundation for media aimed at teaching literacy, social skills, and emotional intelligence was established by conventional educational shows such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. These programs’ emphasis on realistic relationships, slow-paced storytelling, and likable characters made it possible for young viewers to learn things in an entertaining yet developmentally appropriate way. 

Children’s programming nowadays comes in various forms, such as interactive series, educational cartoons, stories with an adventure theme, and content that is only available on streaming services. As digital platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and YouTube Kids have grown in popularity, kids now have more access to content than ever before. Although this accessibility opens new avenues for enjoyment and education, it also brings up issues with screen time, the suitability of the content, and the long-term consequences of digital consumption. 

Positive Impacts of Children’s Shows 

Cognitive and Language Development  

A lot of children’s programs are made with learning objectives in mind. Storytelling, problem-solving, and language development are all incorporated into shows like Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, Bluey, and Dora the Explorer. According to research, preschool-aged children can benefit from well-structured educational programs that help them detect patterns, develop critical thinking skills, and improve their language skills. Asking questions and waiting for answers are examples of interactive components that promote active engagement as opposed to passive viewing. 

Social and Emotional Learning  

Children’s shows often cover concepts like cooperation, empathy, and conflict resolution. While Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood specifically teaches emotional regulation techniques through songs and relevant scenarios, Paw Patrol and Doc McStuffins are examples of programs that show teamwork and problem-solving. Children may benefit from these components as they learn to manage their own emotions and social situations. 

Cultural Awareness and Diversity  

Diverse cultures, languages, and family patterns are being reflected in modern children’s programs. Children are exposed to diverse customs and viewpoints through shows like Elena of Avalor and Molly of Denali, which promote inclusivity and deepen their awareness of the world. These programs encourage tolerance and open-mindedness in young viewers by exposing them to a range of experiences and backgrounds. 

Encouragement of Creativity and Imagination  

Imagination and artistic expression can be fostered by the storytelling, music, and creative problem-solving emphasized in many children’s shows. Children may think creatively outside the screen, thanks to shows like Peppa Pig and Curious George, which promote curiosity, exploration, and imaginative play. 

Potential Negative Effects of Children’s Shows 

Screen Time and Passive Consumption  

Excessive screen time is one of the biggest issues with children’s television. Children between the ages of two and five should not spend more than an hour a day on high-quality screens. Long-term use of screens can lead to problems regulating concentration, sleep issues, and decreased physical activity. The advantages of educational programs may also be limited by passive consumption, in which kids watch without actively participating or absorbing the content. 

Behavioral Imitation and Aggression  

Fast-paced action scenes, exaggerated facial expressions, or even mild hostility are all part of the narrative of several children’s television programs. Although many shows aim to teach morality and problem-solving skills, some topics may unintentionally encourage impulsive action. According to studies, kids who often watch fast-paced, action-packed television may be more aggressive or have trouble controlling their impulses than kids who watch informative, slower-paced programs. 

Commercialization and Consumerism  

Extensive merchandising, ranging from toys and apparel to branded snacks, is associated with many well-known children’s programs. Early brand loyalty is fostered by the frequent appearance of characters from popular television series like Paw Patrol and Frozen on a variety of consumer goods. As children may form strong brand preferences as a result of media exposure, this may encourage imaginative play but also may raise worries about materialism and the commercialization of childhood. 

Unrealistic Expectations and Stereotyping  

Even though they are entertaining, certain children’s television shows could encourage irrational expectations about relationships, achievement, and life. Certain programs may subtly reinforce preconceptions through gender-specific roles, idealized character depictions, or overstated problem resolutions. When it comes to helping kids think critically about what they watch and promoting conversations about the implications for real life, parents and other adults play an important part. 

The Role of Parents and Caregivers 

Given the possible advantages and disadvantages of children’s programming, parental participation is still crucial to maximizing the beneficial effects and reducing the negative ones. Some tips for consuming media responsibly are: 

Co-Viewing and Discussion. Watching programs with children allows caregivers to explain concepts, answer questions, and reinforce positive messages. Discussing themes and moral lessons can deepen understanding and encourage critical thinking. 

Setting Limits on Screen Time. Establishing boundaries for television and digital device use ensures that children engage in a balanced mix of activities, including physical play, reading, and social interactions. 

Selecting High-Quality Content.Choosing age-appropriate, educationally enriching programs can enhance learning experiences. Platforms like PBS Kids and Sesame Workshop offer well-researched content that aligns with developmental needs. 

Encouraging Active Engagement.Rather than passive viewing, caregivers can promote active engagement by asking children about what they watched, encouraging them to reenact stories, or relating on-screen lessons to real-life situations. 

Conclusion 

Children’s television shows continue to significantly impact the behavior and development of young viewers. Excessive screen time and exposure to inappropriate content can be problematic, while well-designed programs can promote learning, creativity, and social-emotional development. Parents who actively participate and establish a balance between education and fun can help children benefit from media use in a constructive and developmentally appropriate way. Supporting the upcoming generation of young viewers will require constant research and careful content creation as technology and storytelling continue to advance. 

Marriage, Inequality, and Human Rights: Rethinking a Cultural Norm 

As a philosophy student, I find the debate around marriage fascinating because it’s something almost everyone has personal experience with—whether through their own relationships, family, or society at large. On the surface, marriage might seem like a simple institution built on love and commitment, but when we dig deeper, we start to see cracks in its foundation. 

Marriage has long been regarded as a cornerstone of social life, providing structure for intimate relationships, legal benefits, and a framework for raising children. But as legal scholars and human rights advocates have increasingly pointed out, marriage also functions as a gatekeeper to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and it does not serve everyone equally. This raises serious ethical questions: Does marriage reinforce systemic inequality, particularly for women and non-traditional families? Is it time to reform, replace, or abandon it altogether? In this blog, we’ll explore three contemporary philosophical arguments about marriage and their implications for justice and human rights. 

Susan Okin: Marriage Makes Women Vulnerable

Susan Okin argues that marriage, as it exists today, creates and reinforces gender-based vulnerabilities, particularly for women. In Vulnerability by Marriage, she explores how society expects women to take on most of the caregiving responsibilities, which leads to an unfair division of labor both at home and in the workplace.  

According to the American Time Use Survey by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2022, women spent an average of 2.4 hours per day on household activities, compared to 1.5 hours for men. Women were also far more likely to provide unpaid caregiving for children and elderly family members. Even in so-called egalitarian households, studies show that men’s careers tend to take priority, affecting decisions about where to live and how to divide time and resources. 

A woman overwhelmed during a tense office meeting. Her head is down and people are yelling at her. — Image 2: An overwhelming woman in a workplace. Source: Yahoo Images.

These patterns have real economic consequences. Women who step back from paid work to care for children often experience long-term wage penalties and loss of retirement savings. After divorce, the gender wealth gap becomes even more stark. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that women’s household income fell by 41% after divorce, compared to just 23% for men. 

Okin’s critique points to a larger human rights issue: economic dependency can limit women’s autonomy and political participation. Without systemic support, such as paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, or equitable divorce laws, marriage remains a structural disadvantage for many women. 

Laurie Shrage: Should the State Be Involved in Marriage at All?

In her piece, The End of Marriage, Laurie Shrage takes Okin’s critique even further. Rather than just reforming marriage to be more equitable, she questions the role of the State in structuring intimate relationships. Shrage argues that marriage, as a state-sanctioned institution, provides legal and social privileges to some relationships while marginalizing others. If you’re married, you get tax breaks, easier access to healthcare, and legal rights over your partner’s well-being. But what about people in non-traditional relationships, cohabiting partners, or polyamorous families that don’t fit into the legal mold? 

Consider this: The U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 1,138 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. But for unmarried partners—even those in long-term caregiving relationships—those same protections are often unavailable. This creates a system of legal exclusion that disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals, lower-income families, and those outside traditional family structures. 

Shrage does not argue that the state should entirely remove itself from intimate relationships. Instead, she believes the law should be restructured so that protections and benefits are not solely tied to marriage. Instead of privileging marriage, we could develop alternative legal structures that support all kinds of caregiving relationships without requiring people to fit into a specific mold. Some states have made attempts to implement this. For instance, Colorado’s Designated Beneficiary Agreements allow individuals to assign rights such as hospital visitation or inheritance without marriage. Yet these reforms are patchwork and often limited in scope. 

Scissors cutting through a marriage contract — Image 3: Restructuring the Institute of Marriage. Source: Yahoo Images.

Shrage’s argument forces us to rethink what marriage actually does. If it’s primarily about securing legal and financial benefits, then why should it be tied to romantic relationships at all? Shouldn’t anyone be able to create binding legal partnerships that reflect their chosen family structures? Shrage proposes an alternative: decoupling legal benefits from marital status. Legal agreements could allow individuals to designate financial partners, medical proxies, or co-parents without needing a state-sanctioned marriage. By ensuring equal access to legal protections regardless of relationship type, we could create a system that better serves the diverse ways people build their lives together. 

Claudia Card: Tear It All Down

While Okin and Shrage suggest ways to reform or restructure marriage, Claudia Card takes a more radical approach in Against Marriage and Motherhood. She argues that marriage is not merely flawed but fundamentally coercive—and often serves as a mechanism for control and abuse. 

One of Card’s most powerful arguments is that marriage can trap individuals in violent or exploitative relationships. Because marriage is a legal contract that binds two people together, leaving an abusive marriage often requires legal intervention—something that can be expensive, slow, and emotionally exhausting. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey by the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men have experienced severe intimate partner violence. Due to financial dependency and legal entanglement, many people find it difficult to leave abusive marriages. A 2020 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that economic abuse, like controlling access to money or employment, was a key barrier to leaving. In many cases, the legal system inadvertently works to sustain abusive relationships by making it harder for the abused partner to leave, which is the fundamental reason why Card believes marriage, in any form, is beyond repair.   

A sad child looks at the camera as her distressed parents sit behind her — Image 4: A visual representation of the harms marriage can bring. Source: Yahoo Images.

Additionally, Card critiques the cultural glorification of motherhood. While motherhood is often idealized, mothers in the U.S. face one of the highest unpaid caregiving burdens in the developed world. The U.S. is the only wealthy country without guaranteed paid maternity leave. Women, especially single mothers, are left to shoulder the costs of caregiving without adequate support, leading to heightened rates of poverty, stress, and burnout. 

Card’s radical proposal—to abolish marriage as a legal institution—calls for building new social structures based on mutual care and autonomy rather than control and dependency. From a human rights standpoint, her argument challenges us to rethink whether any institution should have the power to limit freedom, security, or self-determination.

Where Do We Go From Here?

In philosophy, we often come back to the same fundamental question: Should we work within the system to make it more just, or should we tear it down and start over? Okin, Shrage, and Card each offer different visions for the future of marriage, but they all agree on one thing—the way things are now isn’t working. 

At its core, the debate about marriage is a human rights issue. Who gets access to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and at what cost? And marriage laws don’t just reinforce inequality for adults; they also impact vulnerable populations in ways we rarely acknowledge. For example, child marriage remains legal in parts of the U.S.—a reality that raises serious ethical concerns. 

Our three authors all highlight different ways in which marriage has historically marginalized certain groups, particularly women, and ask us to consider alternative frameworks that promote justice and equality. Whether through reforming marriage, removing state involvement, or abandoning it altogether, the goal should be to ensure that all individuals—regardless of their relationship status—have equal rights, protection, and autonomy. As we continue to challenge traditional norms, we must prioritize human dignity, fairness, and inclusivity in the ways we structure relationships and social institutions. 

Human Rights Concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory

Overview

The Austin, Texas-based Tesla Gigafactory is regarded as a pillar of innovation, pushing the boundaries in sustainable production and economic expansion. However, serious human rights issues have emerged behind the news of economic revival and technical advancement. These problems, which range from claims of discrimination and labor exploitation to infractions of workplace safety, expose a concerning aspect of Tesla’s operations. As a leader in renewable energy and technology, Tesla needs to maintain ethical business standards in its establishments, particularly as public scrutiny increases. 

Workplace Safety Concerns 

Workplace safety is one of the Gigafactory’s most urgent human rights issues. After discovering that four employees at the Austin site had been exposed to dangerous chemicals without the appropriate training or safety precautions, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) penalized Tesla close to $7,000 in November 2024. Hexavalent chromium, an extremely hazardous material that can cause cancer, damage to the kidneys, and serious respiratory problems, was being handled by the workers. OSHA claims that workers in the Cybertruck body area were exposed to significant health hazards because they lacked the necessary training to handle hazardous materials. 

Apart from this offense, Tesla is also being investigated for the August 2024 worker death that was recorded at the facility. Even though the incident’s specifics are unknown until OSHA’s investigation is finished, it raises more concerns about the factory’s safety procedures and supervision. This is not an isolated problem for Tesla; the firm has been repeatedly criticized for its record on workplace safety in several locations, which suggests a systemic issue. 

Employee reports present a worrisome image. Workers have complained that safety instruction is either hurried or superficial, with little focus on long-term precautions. Some believe that speed and output are given precedence over worker safety due to Tesla’s focus on increasing production for vehicles such as the Cybertruck. This conflict between safety and efficiency draws attention to a crucial area where Tesla’s company operations deviate from ethical standards. 

Wage Theft and Exploitation 

Widespread criticism has also been directed at labor violations that occurred during the Texas Gigafactory development. A Texas-based nonprofit group called the Workers Defense Project complained to the U.S. Department of Labor in November 2022 on behalf of construction workers employed at the facility. According to the allegations, employees were sometimes not paid at all and were not paid for overtime. Contractors are also accused of giving employees phony safety training certifications, which essentially left them unprepared for the dangers they encountered on the job site. 

These labor violations reflect a larger problem with supply chain management at Tesla. Tesla indirectly supports exploitative activities by using subcontractors who compromise workers’ protections. Under the possibility of losing their jobs, construction workers, many of whom are immigrants, said they felt pressured into dangerous working conditions. In addition to breaking labor regulations, such actions also go against fundamental human rights values, which place an emphasis on treating employees fairly and with dignity. 

The problem is made worse by the contractors’ lack of responsibility. Employees who tried to report dangerous working conditions or wage fraud frequently faced retaliation or disregard. This cycle of exploitation shows how urgently Tesla must strengthen its oversight of its contractors to guarantee compliance with ethical standards and labor laws. 

Environmental Hazards and Worker Safety 

Although the Austin Gigafactory’s environmental practices have come under fire, Tesla’s dedication to sustainability is a fundamental component of its brand identity. There were rumors in November 2024 that a broken furnace door had exposed the facility’s employees to temperatures as high as 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to reports, this problem lasted for months as Model Y manufacturing ramped up, seriously affecting worker comfort and safety. 

Additionally, Tesla was accused by a whistleblower of manipulating furnace operations to pass emissions tests. This manipulation prompted wider environmental concerns in addition to putting workers at risk of exposure to dangerous pollutants. Tesla’s public pledge to sustainability and environmental responsibility is compromised when it uses unethical means to satisfy regulatory requirements. 

These environmental risks exacerbate an already difficult and, at times, dangerous work environment for employees. Reports of excessive temperatures, chemical fume exposure, and insufficient ventilation reveal a pattern of carelessness that endangers workers. In addition to harming employees, these circumstances damage Tesla’s standing as a leader in environmentally friendly technology. 

Image 2: Tesla car production factory. Source: Yahoo! Images

Allegations of (Potential) Racial Discrimination 

Claims of racial discrimination have also sparked criticism of Tesla’s workplace culture. Although its facility in Fremont, California, has received a lot of attention, its challenges are representative of larger issues that could affect its operations in Texas. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Tesla in September 2023, claiming that Black workers at the Fremont facility experienced widespread racial harassment. The lawsuit described instances of graffiti, racial epithets, and a toxic workplace where complaints were frequently disregarded. Workers who reported such instances were subject to retribution, which included negative employment changes and terminations. 

Even though these claims are specific to Tesla’s California plant, they raise important concerns about the company’s work environment and whether the Texas Gigafactory is engaging in similar activities. According to reports from former workers, Tesla’s leadership has had difficulty addressing concerns of equity and inclusivity within the company. Such claims reveal a stark discrepancy between a company’s internal procedures and public image, which is concerning for a forward-thinking business. 

Broader Implications for Human Rights 

The human rights violations at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Texas are not isolated events; rather, they are a part of a wider trend of unethical behavior by the business. Communities like Austin have benefited economically from Tesla’s quick growth and innovation-focused approach, but worker safety, ethical labor standards, and environmental responsibility shouldn’t be sacrificed for these advantages. 

Furthermore, the significance of Tesla’s actions is increased by its influence. Being one of the most well-known businesses in the world, Tesla sets the standard for how big businesses can balance innovation and morality. Tesla runs the danger of damaging its reputation and alienating both staff and customers if it doesn’t sufficiently address these human rights issues. 

Steps Toward Ethical Practices 

Tesla must take swift action to change the way it operates and address these concerns. First and foremost, the business needs to make a stronger commitment to workplace safety by putting in place comprehensive training programs and making sure that all workers, whether they are contracted or directly employed, have enough protection. Regular audits are part of this to find and fix safety hazards before they can cause harm. 

Labor practices also need to see substantial reform. Tesla needs to hold contractors accountable for wage theft and other violations by implementing stricter oversight mechanisms. Ensuring that workers are paid fairly and on time is not just a legal obligation, but a moral imperative. 

Environmental responsibility must be prioritized as well. Tesla’s innovative reputation relies on its commitment to sustainability, and this should extend to its factory operations. Adhering to environmental regulations and maintaining transparency in emissions testing are important steps toward rebuilding trust. 

Finally, fostering an inclusive workplace culture is essential for addressing allegations of discrimination. Tesla would benefit from establishing clear channels for employees to report harassment and discrimination without fear of retaliation. Regular training on diversity and inclusion can also help create a more equitable environment for all workers. 

Conclusion 

These major concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory are a sobering reminder of the ethical challenges accompanying rapid industrial growth. From workplace safety violations to wage theft and allegations of discrimination, these issues stress the gaps in Tesla’s operations that demand immediate attention. Given its influence, Tesla has a unique opportunity to set an example for ethical corporate practices. 

By addressing these concerns head-on, Tesla can ensure that its growth benefits its bottom line and the workers and communities contributing to its success. Ultimately, the true measure of Tesla’s impact will be its technological achievements and its commitment to upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of its workforce. 

The Loss of a Child in Marriage: U.S. Child Marriage Laws

Image 1: Children in a classroom. Source: Yahoo Images.

Children are the most vulnerable population in the world. Their safety is relevant to the safety and success of the community. Protecting our children’s future and providing a safe and stable environment to grow up in is detrimental to everyone’s future. Typically, when we think about child marriages, we think about different countries, but the United States of America is no exception. If you would like to read about a different country and its struggles with battling child marriages, as well as the effects that child marriage has on the constituents, I will redirect you towards a fellow intern at UAB’s Institute for Human Rights, Catherine Rhodes.

Her blog evaluates the situation of child marriages in Niger and gives an in-depth explanation of the effects child marriages have. If that interests you, check out Child Marriage in Niger: A Deep-Rooted Crisis and the Path Forward. For this article, I will evaluate the state of America’s laws regarding child marriage.

What They Lose:

Image 2: School library. Source: Yahoo Images.

International human rights activists are advocating for the minimum legal age to enter into a marriage to be set at 18 years old. This age requirement is to protect both girls and boys from entering into marriages as minors. Around the world, each year, 14 million girls are married. The countries most devastated by child marriages include Niger, Chad, Mali, Nepal, and Bangladesh, to name a few. America is not on that list. However, there are loopholes in some laws that allow for minors to be married in a majority of American states.

So long as American law allows it, children will always face the possibility of entering into a marriage as minors. It is true that America does not struggle with the same amount of child marriages as other countries. However, comparing America to another country in terms of the rate and amount of child brides does nothing to combat the fact that there are still legal ways for a minor to get married in the U.S. One child is a child too many. Laws that legalize marriage of minors are a human rights violation. When there are laws that allow for this abuse to take place, a child can never truly be safe.

Education during a person’s early stages in life is detrimental to their development. It is an opportunity to develop social and mental abilities that will help the success of their future. By entering into marriage at a young age, this development can be stifled. Education has the ability to give people the confidence and empowerment to create their own opinions and thoughts about the world. There is strength in knowledge, and once it is learned, no one can take it away from you. To stunt the growth of children is an atrocity in its own right.

Education is a key way for people, specifically young women, to delay marriage. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that education is a human right. Statistically, a girl is 6% less likely to get married every year she remains in school. In an increasingly more connected and advanced world, education is power. The majority of women who are married young drop out of school. They are expected to take care of their family, children, and home, which in turn leaves little time for personal education.

While it is not impossible for someone who is both young and married to continue their education, it is significantly more likely that their education will end soon after marriage. Child marriages will often lead to young pregnancy, which will have a lasting physical and emotional effect on a young girl. After dropping out of school, being married, and potentially starting a family, the chances of that girl returning to school are low.

Child Marriages in the U.S.:

Statue of justice outside of a U.S. Court. — Image 3: Statue of justice outside of U.S. Court. Source: Yahoo Images.

As of 2024, 13 states in the U.S. have banned child marriages. Each state that has put restrictions on the legal age of marriage has had to fight tirelessly to get them passed. Minors cannot file for divorce without the assistance of an adult, which has left legal restraints on young people and trapped them within their marriages.

The U.S. Department of State has been pushing for gender equality and stands behind the fact that the marriage of a person under the age of 18 is a human rights abuse. Nevertheless, laws supporting child marriages seem to be set in an uncrushable stone in most states. Even New Hampshire, which recently raised the minimum age of marriage to 18 years old, had to fight for 7 years to demolish the loopholes that allowed for child marriages in the state.

Out of the 50 States of America, only 22 states require proof of age for all marriage applicants. There are lax laws of proof of residency in some states, meaning that someone in a state that implements strict marriage laws could simply travel to a different state. Alabama has the 9th highest number of child marriages since 2000. From the years of 2000 to 2018, 9,166 children were allowed to marry. Around 7% of those cases would have counted as a sexual crime. In 2019, Alabama got rid of the requirement that marriage licenses have to be issued by a probate judge. There is no requirement that persons getting married must show proof of age. The legal age of marriage with the consent of a parent in Alabama ranges from 15 to 16 years old.

Some of the states with the worst child marriage restriction laws are California and Mississippi. From 2000 to 2018, 23,588 children were married in California. Close to 9,000 of those children were under 16 years old, 1,253 children were under the age of 14, 78 children were 13, and 5 children were 10 years old. State Senator Jerry Hill introduced a bill in 2018 that would abolish marriage for any minors, which went into effect in 2019. However, a minor is still allowed to get married with the consent of only one parent and a judge, and California does not require proof of age. A new bill was proposed to prohibit the marriage of minors with no exceptions in 2023, but it had to be altered to allow for underage marriage with a court order and the consent of a parent. The bill ultimately failed in the committee.

In Mississippi, from 2000 to 2018, 5,360 minors were married. Under Mississippi state law, statutory rape is not applicable in a marriage, no matter the age of the persons involved in the marriage. So long as there is parental consent, a minor can get married in Mississippi; there is no minimum age for marriage. Essentially, any male or female, no matter their age, can get married with the consent of their parents and the approval of a judge. An attempt to amend the marriage law was made in 2021 but ultimately failed, and the bill died in the legislature.

Conclusion:

All around the world, there are children lost to the shackles of marriage. They are the most vulnerable members of society and the most worthy of our protection. According to Child USA: The Think Tank For Child Protection, setting the minimum age of marriage to 18 years old, eliminating the requirement of judicial and parental consent, as well as requiring proof of residency and age can further protect children from being married as a minor. For more resources, Child USA gives reports on the state of children’s rights within the U.S. Another website to look at is Girls Not Brides, which is an organization that is dedicated to ending child marriage globally.

Brighter Futures for Little Blazers at UAB: A Youth Mentoring Program

Introduction

The clamor of tiny voices filled the UAB lecture hall, a space usually reserved for undergraduates and professors. At the front of the room, a small hand shot up. “What’s college like?” one of our mentees asked, eyes wide with curiosity. In that moment, I realized the importance of our work—not just mentoring but planting the seeds of possibility in young minds.

In a previous blog, How Youth Mentoring Can Instill Resilience in the Next Generation, I shared the story of my time mentoring a young girl through Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS). That experience illuminated the transformative power of mentorship and the deeper systemic barriers that prevent many children from accessing quality education. Today, I want to expand on those themes, exploring how these barriers represent a fundamental human rights issue and how initiatives like my student organization, Brighter Futures for Little Blazers at UAB (BFLB), are working to address these inequities.

The Inaccessibility of Education

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “everyone has the right to education.” Yet, for millions of children in the United States, this right remains elusive, especially those from marginalized communities. According to the U.S. Department of Education, students from the lowest income quartile are five times less likely to complete a bachelor’s degree than those from the highest.

For children experiencing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), such as poverty, neglect, or violence, the barriers to education are even more significant. These experiences correlate with reduced academic performance, lower high school graduation rates, and limited access to higher education. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that nearly 61% of adults have experienced at least one ACE, and these adverse experiences disproportionately affect children of color and those living in low-income households.

Systemic inequities further compound these challenges. Schools in underfunded districts often lack essential resources, such as experienced teachers, extracurricular programs, and adequate infrastructure. A study by the Education Law Center found that schools serving predominantly low-income and minority students receive $1,800 less per student annually than those in wealthier districts despite having greater needs.

These inequities not only violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination but also perpetuate cycles of poverty. Without access to quality education, children face limited career opportunities, which in turn limits their earning potential and ability to improve their socioeconomic status.

The Role of Brighter Futures for Little Blazers at UAB

I founded Brighter Futures for Little Blazers at UAB (BFLB) in the Fall of 2023 in response to the systemic challenges children in Birmingham face. As a student at UAB and a mentor with BBBS, I saw firsthand how a lack of volunteers, compounded by logistical barriers like transportation, limited children’s access to mentoring opportunities. BFLB was designed to bridge these gaps by leveraging the resources and enthusiasm of college students.

Big Brothers Big Sisters pairs Bigs (mentors) with Littles (mentees) to connect kids who have faced ACEs with mentors who can provide an extra support system. BFLB is not an isolated initiative but rather a tailored offshoot of BBBS’s Beyond School Walls program. This program connects youth with workplace mentors to help them develop professional skills, explore career opportunities, and build confidence. At its core, Beyond School Walls is about exposing children to environments that inspire and prepare them for the future. While BBBS traditionally partners with corporations and businesses for this initiative, BFLB brings the concept to a university setting. Instead of pairing Littles with corporate employees, BFLB pairs them with college students, creating a relatable and aspirational mentoring dynamic. This modification aligns perfectly with Beyond School Walls’s goals while addressing our community’s specific needs.

Our program buses Littles to UAB twice a month, creating a space where mentorship and education intersect. While the primary goal is to instill resilience and emotional support, BFLB also seeks to inspire children to envision a future that includes higher education. During their visits, Littles participate in STEM activities, career preparation workshops, and campus tours, helping them associate college with possibilities rather than obstacles.

This image is an example of one of the STEM activities Bigs and Littles worked on together. Their goal was to produce the balloon that could travel the fastest on a string. — Image 2: This image is an example of one of the STEM activities Bigs and Littles worked on together. They aimed to produce a balloon that could travel the fastest on a string. Source: Natasha Fernandez

This approach aligns with research showing that mentoring programs tied to real-world experiences significantly improve youth outcomes. Exposure to higher education environments substantially increases the likelihood that children from low-income backgrounds will aspire to attend college. A study by the National Mentoring Partnership found that mentored youth are 55% more likely to enroll in college and develop career aspirations than their non-mentored peers.

Education as a Tool for Change

The systemic inequities necessitating programs like BBBS and BFLB are deeply rooted in broader social and economic disparities. In the United States, low-income children are often concentrated in underfunded schools, where limited resources exacerbate the challenges posed by poverty and ACEs. These inequities are not accidental but are the result of decades of policies that have prioritized affluent communities over marginalized ones.

Mentorship programs like BFLB are not a substitute for systemic reform but serve as an intervention to mitigate the immediate effects of these inequities. For example, Schools with mentoring programs report 52% higher graduation rates compared to those without. However, the impact of mentorship extends beyond individual success. Programs like BFLB and Beyond School Walls challenge the systemic barriers that perpetuate educational inequities by building community partnerships and advocating for policy changes.

While education cannot single-handedly solve systemic inequality, it remains one of the most effective tools for breaking the cycle of poverty. Each additional year of schooling increases an individual’s earning potential by an average of 10%. Yet, for education to serve as a pathway to economic mobility, it must be accessible to all.

Initiatives like BFLB illustrate how community-driven efforts can address accessibility challenges. By combining mentorship with exposure to higher education, BFLB helps Littles overcome the psychological and logistical barriers that prevent many low-income students from pursuing college. At the same time, these initiatives highlight the need for systemic change. Policymakers must prioritize equitable funding for public schools, expand access to mental health resources, and invest in programs that support children facing ACEs. These changes are essential for ensuring that the right to education is not just an ideal but a reality for all children.

In This activity, Bigs helped Littles plan out and the build the tallest tower out of household supplies. — Image 3: In this activity, Bigs helped Littles plan and then build the tallest tower out of household supplies. Source: Natasha Fernandez

Conclusion

The right to education is a cornerstone of human dignity and progress, but systemic barriers deny this right to many children. Initiatives like BBBS’s Beyond School Walls program and BFLB demonstrate the power of mentorship to address these challenges and inspire hope for a brighter future.

However, achieving true educational equity is not a task for one person or organization. It demands a collective effort to dismantle systemic inequities and create a society where every child, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to succeed.

As individuals, we can contribute by volunteering, donating, or advocating for policies that promote educational access. Together, we can ensure that the transformative power of education is available to all, fulfilling its promise as a fundamental human right. As we work toward a more equitable world, civil society organizations must continue to intervene where systems fail.

It takes just one mentor, organization, or program to light the spark that can transform a child’s life.

How Youth Mentoring Can Instill Resilience in the Next Generation

Introduction

The summer heat made itself known even as the AC blew full blast. Amidst the brown, dilapidated apartments, the heat waves emitting off the asphalt appeared like an endless ocean. I exited the car and made my way toward the school tucked among the federal housing apartments. The playground equipment was rusty, trash floated down the streets, and the smell of smoke burned my nose. A secretary greeted me with a toothy smile and asked me to sit while I waited.

Then, she walked in. Her braids bounced off the sides of her head as she looked everywhere in the room except into my eyes. This was my first interaction with my Little (To protect her privacy, I will use a fake name, Shae, to refer to her). Shae is the sweetest, most curious, and energetic person I know. Whenever we meet, she asks me questions, eager to learn about my life, college, hometown, and family.

Yet, getting to this point took work. As we sat together in an empty classroom that first day, she did not speak once. I watched her curious eyes soak me in as she looked me up and down. She studied the intricate embroidery of my purple keychain and spent minutes staring at my hair. I gave her crayons and paper, and while she hesitantly heeded my request to color with her, she did not look into my eyes. I first tried to engage with her by asking questions about her life. Yet, receiving no response each time, I realized I needed to earn her trust first. So, I talked to her about who I am, what I am doing here, and what my life is like.

In this image, Shae is smiling with a christmas cookie we decorated together at her school — Image 1: This was the first picture I took of Shae. We decorated the Christmas cookie together, and she was proud of herself, so I asked if I could take a photo of her holding it. (Shae’s parent authorized to publish the picture by signing UAB’s media release form) Source: Natasha Fernandez

Adverse Childhood Experiences

I met Shae as part of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS), an organization that seeks to connect kids who have faced adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) with mentors who can provide an extra support system. According to the CDC‘s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) definition, ACEs refer to potentially traumatic events that occur during childhood, such as abuse, neglect, or household dysfunction (e.g., domestic violence and substance abuse). These experiences can have long-term effects on physical and mental health, increasing the risk of chronic illnesses, mental health disorders, and negative behaviors such as substance abuse, as well as impacting educational and socioeconomic outcomes in adulthood.

Certain demographics are more at risk of experiencing ACEs due to a range of socioeconomic, familial, and community factors. Studies have shown that these experiences disproportionately impact children from specific backgrounds, often due to systemic inequalities, lack of access to resources, and heightened exposure to stressors. Children from low-income households are significantly more likely to experience ACEs. Financial instability often results in chronic stress, food insecurity, limited access to healthcare, and housing instability—all of which can exacerbate family conflict and increase exposure to violence or neglect. In addition to economic status, research consistently shows that children from Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous communities have a higher likelihood of experiencing ACEs. In the United States, 61% of black non-Hispanic children and 51% of Hispanic children have experienced at least one ACE. In comparison, 40% of white non-Hispanic children and 23% of Asian non-Hispanic children have experienced at least one ACE. ACEs are more prevalent among racial minorities because of issues like housing discrimination, limited healthcare access, and higher exposure to community violence. These groups are often more vulnerable due to systemic racism, discrimination, and fewer opportunities for economic and social mobility.

Mentoring programs like BBBS show evidence of academic and social benefits for mentees. These relationships encourage academic engagement, improving grades and attendance while reducing dropout rates. A mentor’s encouragement instills a belief in the child’s ability to succeed academically, directly impacting self-esteem and future aspirations. Additionally, social guidance helps children navigate relationships, develop empathy, and build trust in others—all critical components for lifelong success and resilience. At BBBS, 91% of our Littles reported feeling a strong sense of belonging among peers, and 93% plan to graduate high school and attend college.

My Personal Experience

This image depicts my first picture with Shae. We are on the playground and smiling — Image 2: This is the first picture Shae and I took together. When we were playing on the school’s playground she asked to take a selfie. (Shae’s parent authorized authorized to publish the picture by signing UAB’s media release form) Source: Natasha Fernandez

I completed an initiation process with BBBS, including a background check, references, an interview, and training. Once everything was in order, I was paired up with Shae.

On that first day, I was filled with a mix of nerves and uncertainty. As I sat in my car, I couldn’t help but wonder, did I do a good job? Does she even like me? However, after a reassuring conversation with my match support coordinator at BBBS, I realized that my experience was not unique. I needed to stay strong and committed to my work, and with time, I would earn Shae’s trust.

Week by week, with each visit, coloring activity, game, and snack, Shae started to warm up to me. She slowly took down her barriers, starting by looking into my eyes. Then, she responded to my questions with yes or no answers and later in complete sentences.

The day Shae started asking me questions about my life, I was overwhelmed with joy. My Little took the lead, instructing me to ask her a question, and then she would reciprocate. We engaged in a lively back-and-forth for almost an hour. It was at that moment that I truly felt our bond had formed. Despite the three-month journey to reach this point, the reward was immeasurable.

Over the next year, Shae opened up, and we formed a close friendship. When the new school year began, her third-grade teacher said they were starting a new school-wide program, and I could only visit my Little during restricted time periods. Finding the perfect time to visit her was difficult with my already packed schedule. Somedays, upon arrival at the elementary school, the secretary would inform me that her mother did not bring her in that day. Somedays, when I brought Shae to the multipurpose room, they were holding a conference, and I could not bring her to the playground because another class was using it. At one point, the school completely repurposed the multipurpose room, and I could only visit on the days the school counselor was not using her office. For the next two months, I was not able to meet with Shae due to the problems with the resource-poor school. Therefore, I requested to transfer to BBBS’s community program, where I could bring Shae to my home. Through this program, I can engage in even more exciting activities with her that she normally wouldn’t be able to do at her home or school. She loves to bake, so we’ve made just about everything from cupcakes and cookies to homemade ice cream and caramel apples.

In this image, Shae is eating a candy apple she insisted would taste better if it was dyed blue — Image 3: This image depicts Shae eating a candy apple that she insisted would taste better if it was dyed blue. (Shae’s parent authorized to publish the picture by signing UAB’s media release form) Source: Natasha Fernandez

I have been with Shae for almost four years now and have seen dramatic changes in her behavior and demeanor. She is prone to emotional outbursts, especially if she is losing a game. But, while she hasn’t completely lost this behavior, I have noticed differences over time. For example, last week, when we were playing Roblox, she became frustrated because the game started before she could finish getting ready. I started to calm her down, but before I could say a word, she said, “It’s okay because I will still have fun.” This brought tears to my eyes because she used my exact phrasing to self-soothe. I have also noticed an improvement in Shae’s communication and ability to express her needs. She now verbally expresses her emotions to me instead of becoming withdrawn or aggressive.

The Effects of Youth Mentoring

Youth mentoring can play a transformative role in the lives of children who have experienced ACEs. These children often lack consistent, supportive relationships with adults. A mentor provides a stable, caring figure who models positive behavior, emotional regulation, and healthy decision-making. Studies show that mentors offer critical emotional support, which can counterbalance the effects of past trauma by reducing feelings of isolation and promoting a sense of belonging. For instance, a meta-analysis on youth mentoring found that children with mentors exhibit better psychological adjustment and emotional well-being than their non-mentored peers.

According to Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child, “The single most common factor for children who develop resilience is at least one stable and committed relationship with a supportive parent, caregiver, or other adult.” Through mentorship, children are exposed to new coping strategies and problem-solving skills vital for resilience. Mentors can guide mentees in identifying their strengths, expressing emotions healthily, and navigating challenges. For children facing stressors, learning to manage emotions and reframe experiences can reduce anxiety, depression, and the likelihood of developing mental health disorders. Coping mechanisms gained through mentoring contribute to a child’s adaptability and perseverance in the face of adversity.

Children with ACEs are more likely to engage in risky behaviors as a coping mechanism. Mentoring relationships offer an alternative by providing a positive outlet and reducing the likelihood of substance abuse, delinquency, and violence. Mentors provide accountability and serve as advocates for healthier choices, which contributes to improved quality of life and fewer risk factors associated with ACEs.

In this picture, Shae and I are sitting in my car and she asked me to take a picture of her trying on my sunglasses. — Image 4: This is the first time I took Shae to my apartment. We were sitting in my car, and she asked me to take a picture of her trying on my sunglasses. (Shae’s parent authorized to publish the picture by signing UAB’s media release form) Source: Natasha Fernandez

Conclusion

There is a profound sense of satisfaction that comes with watching someone grow and knowing that a part of your best self lives in that person. I continue to meet with Shae weekly, and while some days are challenging and draining, I wouldn’t trade my time with her for anything. The progress she has made fills me with a deep sense of pride and accomplishment. It doesn’t take a lot to make a change: just one hour a week and enough love to share.

American Psychiatric Abuses: Residential Treatment Facilities

Content warning: this blog will include mentions of child abuse, child self-harm, child suicide, and child sexual abuse.

Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTFs) are in-patient institutions that provide inpatient psychiatric care to people under the age of 21. They are a common form of short-term psychiatric care for young people. Children do not choose to be committed to these facilities, and they do not want to be. Two children said they were being treated like animals. Many said, “I don’t feel safe.”

Physical Abuse

Children in PRTFs are extremely vulnerable due to both psychiatric issues and the nature of living in institutionalized care. Facilities are often understaffed, leading to minimal supervision and increased opportunities for abuse – by staff and other children.

Staff members at PRTFs have frequent opportunities to abuse their charges. A staff member at Cumberland Hospital in Virginia “poured scalding water on a non-verbal 16-year-old.” An 11-year-old boy from Arkansas was pushed down, had his hair pulled, and had a staff member place her foot in his back. A staff member at Devereaux Brandywine in Pennsylvania was found guilty of assault after she “punched and kicked a 14-year-old in the head, face, and body until the child was unconscious.” In December 2023, a staff member at a facility in Arkansas told a police officer, “I went in there, and I basically twisted his ear real hard in order to get him off the bed, which we’re not supposed to touch them.” A staffer at a facility in South Carolina “hit the child twice, including punching the child in the head.” At a Devereux facility in Viera, Florida, a staff member hit a boy on his neck, leaving marks. It is sad that state governments pay pay thousands of dollars daily for children to be abused by their caretakers.

Further, due to apathy and unawareness from staff, children are also able to abuse other children in PRTFs. At Riverside Hospital in Virginia, a child was “repeatedly stabbed by another child.” At North Star Behavioral Health in Alaska, after two children were accidentally placed in seclusion together, one child gave the other a bloody nose. At the same Alaska facility, a child was “punched, slapped in the eye, and kicked by other children.”

None of these instances of abuse were reported to the children’s guardians in a timely manner. Some parents were never notified.

Sexual Abuse

A caregiver at Lighthouse Care Center of Augusta, in Augusta, Georgia, was arrested and convicted of child molestation. An employee at a facility in Alabama was sentenced after sexually abusing a 13-year-old boy she should have been caring for. A man working at a facility in Chicago was charged with three counts after sexually assaulting minors in his care. A Utah man pled guilty to sexually abusing three male students at a residential school he worked at.

Staff members also allow sexual abuse to occur between children. At Devereux Brandywine in Pennsylvania, a 13-year-old boy asked not to be placed in a room with an older boy he was afraid of. They were placed as roommates, and “the older boy forced the younger child to perform oral sex on him on three successive nights in a walk-in closet.” This is one of many equally disturbing instances of staff enabling sexual abuse at facilities. One facility in New Mexico closed partially due to “the unchecked spread of HIV among patients” – something that brings to mind the hepatitis experiments of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s at Willowbrook State School, an infamous institution in New York.

Image 2: A postcard from Willowbrook State School. Source: Yahoo Images

Neglect and Unsafe Environments

Staff at PRTFs are often unable or unwilling to prevent children from harming themselves. Disability Rights Arkansas, the Protection & Advocacy Agency for Arkansas, reported that one girl “still had access to items to cut her arms. There were numerous new scars over her old scars.” The staff did not care. Another child at the same facility said that she had “used the second stall [with cracked and sharp shower tiles] to self-harm.” The staff did not care. If they had, the children in their care would be safe. A child at Palmetto Pines Behavioral Health in South Carolina “barricaded themselves inside of his suicide watch room…[and] used the plastics piece to cut his neck in an attempt to kill himself, but it was not sharp enough.” The staff did not care. A child at Provo Canyon School in Utah “caused personal injury during self-harm, with wounds that were one and two inches in length… through the fatty tissue.” At Oak Plains Academy in Tennessee, two 15-year-olds overdosed on Benadryl. The mother of one of them said, “I’ll never see her again; I just want justice for her; I just want her story told. And I want – I never want this to happen again to anyone.”

Image 3: A box of Benadryl. Source: Yahoo Images

Minority Children

Children who are also members of minoritized groups, especially children of color and LGBTQIA+ children, have even greater difficulties in PRTFs.

According to a Senate report, “[T]he longer an RTF stay, the longer a child is at risk of exposure to harms, including the use of restraints and seclusion, physical and sexual abuse, insufficient education, and substandard living conditions. This risk is heightened for children of color, LGBTQIA+ youth, and children with I/DD (intellectual/developmental disabilities) who are most likely to live in these settings.” Black children are 35% more likely than white children to be placed in institutionalized care facilities.

Cornelius Frederick, a 16-year-old Black boy from Michigan, was killed at a facility in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in April 2020. Seven male staff members restrained Frederick for 12 minutes. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide – asphyxiation.

In 2018, a gay 16-year-old was attacked while residing at St. John’s Academy, a Sequel facility in Florida. His attacker told him that he “didn’t want a fa***t in the pod.” Disability Rights Washington reported that two “crisis plans” for children residing at PRTFs used incorrect gendered pronouns when referring to the child. In 2020, two transgender girls resided at Sequel Courtland in Courtland, Alabama – a boys’ facility. One girl was being stalked by other residents. She did not feel safe.

Further Information

For further reading about the kinds of abuses that go on in these facilities, consider reading a blog I wrote in April about group homes. You can also reach out to local representatives about ending or reducing out-of-state institutionalizations, which are harder to investigate than in-state institutions.